Madras High Court
Dr.S.Sophia Christina vs The Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... on 13 September, 2022
1 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.21963 of 2021 and
W.M.P.(MD)No.18548 of 2021
Dr.S.Sophia Christina,
Assistant Professor,
Department of English,
St. John's College, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli – 627 012. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Rep. By its Registrar,
Abishekapatti,
Tirunelveli District – 627 012.
2. The Secretary,
St. John's College, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli – 627 012. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned
circular issued by the 1st respondent University in Ref.
No.MSU/R/CD/Minority Coll./Selc.Proc/ Principal.A.P/2018
dated 17.01.2018 and the consequential proceedings in
Ref.No.MSU/R/CDC/A4/127/QA/A.P/Doc.Reg./2021 dated
02.08.2021 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, quash the
same and further direct the 1st respondent Manonmaniam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
2 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
Sundaranar University to grant qualification approval
forthwith to the appointment of the petitioner in the 2nd
respondent college in her respective post in the Department of
English with effect from her date of appointment viz.,
02.12.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy
For R-1 : Ms.H.Jasima Yasmin,
for Mr.Mahaboob Athiff.
For R-2 : Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan
***
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The second respondent college is a minority
institution. It is receiving aid from the state. One post of
Assistant Professor in English fell vacant. The college
constituted a staff selection committee and selected the writ
petitioner for the said post and appointed her as Assistant
Professor in English with effect from 02.12.2020. The college
submitted a proposal to the first respondent for getting
qualification approval. The relevant documents were also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
enclosed. The first respondent University vide proceedings
dated 23.02.2021 returned the proposal. Thereafter, the
college management resubmitted the proposal. Again the first
respondent University rejected the request and declined to
grant approval on the ground that the constitution of the
selection committee was not made in accordance with the
UGC norms. Challenging the same, the present writ petition
has been filed.
3. The issue raised in the writ petition is no longer
res integra. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision
reported in 2011 (1) CTC 162 (The Forum of Minority
Institutions & Associations V. The State of Tamil Nadu)
had already settled the issue. The relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid decision is as follows:-
“ 60. In view of the settled proposition of law,
the contention of learned Counsel for the University
Grants Commission that by way of amendment of
regulations, independence has been given to the
minority institutions to select their own people without
outside interference, as the right of appointment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
teachers out of qualified teachers is to be left to the
minority institutions alone cannot be accepted, as the
process of selection of teachers cannot regulated, as it
would amount to interference in administration of
minority institutions.
61. The contention of the learned counsel for
the respondents that regulations are in public interest
to maintain standard of education also cannot be
accepted as the appointment of qualified teachers as
per the qualification prescribed by the University
Grants Commission by the minority institutions cannot
be said to violate the public interest, nor it can be said
that the educational standard would not be maintained.
62. The right of minority institutions under
Section 30 is absolute right being basis structure of the
Constitution and therefore, any regulation interfering
with the right of administration would not be applicable
to the minority institutions, being violative of Article
30(1) of the Constitution.
63. The contention that right to administer
does not include right to maladministration also cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
be accepted as the minority institutions would be
bound by qualification laid down for appointment of
teachers and also would be bound to follow other
statutory laws necessary for running their institutions
to maintain educational standard. The only restriction
placed is with regard to the right to interfere in the
selection of staff of the minority institutions.
64. Once the right of appointment of teachers
is taken to be the right of administration, which is not
even disputed by the respondents, no other conclusion
than the one that the impugned regulations would not
apply to minority institutions can be arrived at.
65. This Court is bound by the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court even in case where the
question is referred to Constitutional Bench as in the
case of State of Rajasthan v. R.S. Sharma and Co.
reported in MANU/SC/0497/1988 : (1988) 4 SCC 353,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to consider
question with regard to the applicability of law when
the matter stood referred to the Constitutional Bench
and it was held as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
7. It was contended before us that the
question whether on the ground of absence of
reasons, the award is bad per se, is pending
consideration by a Constitution Bench of this
Court in C.A. Nos. 3137-39 of 1985, 3145 of 1985
- Jaipur Development Authority v. Firm
Chhokhamal Contractor. It was, hence, urged that
this should await adjudication on this point by the
Constitution Bench. We are unable to accept this
contention. In our opinion pendency of this
question should not postpone all decision by this
Court. One of the cardinal principles of the
administration of justice is to ensure quick
disposal of disputes in accordance with law,
justice and equity. In the instant case the
proceedings have been long procrastinated.
Indeed, the learned Judge of the High Court, after
narrating the incidents from 1975 to 1985,
concluded in his judgment in March 1988 that
was the end of the journey. He was wrong. That
was only the end of a chapter in the journey and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
the Appellant wants to begin another chapter in
the journey on the plea that the award is not a
reasoned one. The bargaining between the parties
was entered into in 1974-75 but the award was
made on December 8, 1985 i.e. a decade after the
beginning of the transaction.
For the reasons stated, the writ petitions are allowed,
and declaration is issued, that the impugned
regulations for constitution of selection committee
shall not be applicable to the minority institutions.
Consequently, Writ in nature of Mandamus is issued
directing the respondents to approve the selection
made by the minority institutions without reference to
Clause 3 of annexure to UGC Regulations 2000, subject
to the selected candidates fulfilling other
qualifications, experience etc. No costs. Consequently,
all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
4. My attention is also drawn to the order dated
23.03.2021 made in W.P.(MD)No.1691 of 2020 in which the
aforesaid decision was followed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
5. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings are
quashed. The second respondent is directed to resubmit the
proposal seeking qualification approval before the first
respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall
consider the said proposal and pass appropriate order on
merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight
weeks thereafter. The first respondent will not insist that the
selection committee should have been constituted in
accordance with UGC norms.
6. This writ petition stands allowed on these terms.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
13.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note : Issue order copy on 16.09.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
To:
1. The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Rep. By its Registrar,
Abishekapatti,
Tirunelveli District – 627 012.
2. The Secretary,
St. John's College, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli – 627 012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
W.P.(MD)No.21963 of 2021
13.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11 W.P.(MD)NO.21963 OF 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
